ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- 1. The impugned order passed by Tahsildar by returning officer annexure P-1 be quash. 2. The respondent be directed to allow the petitioner to contest the election of Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Salauta Tehsil Maksudangarh Guna. 3. Cost of this litigation may also be awarded or any other suitable order to ensure the substantial justice may be passed. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that she had submitted her nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Salauta, District Guna. However, the said nomination paper has been rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution -- (a) xx xx (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State.” 5. The Supreme in the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 had held as under: 30. To what extent Article 329(b) has an overriding effect on Article 226 of the Constitution? The two Constitution Benches have held that Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for only one remedy; that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. The non obstante clause with which Article 329 opens, pushes out Article 226 where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election (see para 25 of Mohinder Singh Gill case [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ] ). The provisions of the Constitution and the Act read together do not totally exclude the right of a citizen to approach the court so as to have the wrong done remedied by invoking the judicial forum; nevertheless the lesson is that the election rights and remedies are statutory, ignore the trifles even if there are irregularities or illegalities, and knock the doors of the courts when the election proceedings in question are over. Two-pronged attack on anything done during the election proceedings is to be avoided — one during the course of the proceedings and the other at its termination, for such two-pronged attack, if allowed, would unduly protract or obstruct the functioning of democracy. 31. xx xx 32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove: (1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court. (5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. (5) The Court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The Court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the Court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material. 6. Furthermore, rejection of nomination paper is a ground for filing election petition. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing the election petition on the ground of improper rejection of nomination paper, therefore, no case is made out warranting interference. 8. With aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.